355.By
resolution of November 30, 2002, the President of the Court convoked the
representatives of the victims’ next-of-kin, the Inter-American
Commission, and the Guatemalan State to a public hearing to be held on
February 18, 19, and 20, 2003, for the purpose of taking the statements
of the witnesses and the report by the expert witnesses offered by those
representatives and the Commission, and their arguments and the State’s
arguments with respect to the case. On February 17, 2003, Guatemala
communicated to the Court that it “desists from the preliminary
objections invoked on September 26, 2001,” and that it was “partially
accepting the facts asserted by the petitioner so long as the petitioner
affirms others that the Guatemalan State is not institutionally capable
of accepting, as are all those of which the Commission rendered its own
extensive interpretation....”

356.The
Inter-American Commission stated that the partial recognition of
responsibility by the State before the Court had already occurred before
the Commission; that it was fundamental that a public hearing be held to
analyze the merits, and that the Court should consider the scope of this
partial and general recognition when issuing the judgment on the merits.
The representatives of the victim’s next-of-kin asked that public
hearing proceed.

357.On
February 18, 2003, the Commission submitted its statements with respect
to the “partial acceptance of facts and rights” by the State in a public
hearing before the Court. The Court considered that the controversy
between the parties concerning the scope of the State’s recognition of
responsibility as to facts and rights continued, it deliberated in this
respect, and the same day it ordered accepted, for all purposes, the
abandonment by the State of the preliminary objections it had invoked;
and it ordered that the public hearing convoked should go forward, as
well as all other procedural acts related to the processing of the case
with respect to the merits and reparations.

358.On
February 18, 19, and 20, the Court held the public hearing at its
headquarters, at which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the
reports from the expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the
next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR also presented
its final arguments on the merits and on reparations.

359.On
November 25, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and
reparations, and,

taking note of the
acquiescence of the State, in which it unconditionally acknowledged its
international responsibility regarding the case, and having assessed the
body of evidence, as set forth in paragraphs 111 to 116 of the instant
Judgment,

DECLARES THAT:

unanimously,

1. that the State violated the right to life enshrined in
Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination
with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Myrna
Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 139 to 158 of the instant
Judgment.

unanimously,

2. that the State violated the right to fair trial and to
judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that
same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna
Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau,
Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang
Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 165 to 218 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

3. that the State violated the right to humane treatment
embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in
combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment
of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández
Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang,
Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 224
to 233 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

4. that this
Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparations, as set forth
in paragraph 260 of the instant Judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. that the State must effectively investigate the facts of the
instant case, with the aim of identifying, trying, and punishing all the
direct perpetrators and accessories, and all others responsible for the
extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and for the cover-up of the
extra-legal execution and other facts of the instant case, aside from
the person who has already been punished for those facts; and that the
results of the investigations must be made known to the public, as set
forth in paragraphs 271 to 275 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

6. that the State must remove all de facto and legal obstacles
and mechanisms that maintain impunity in the instant case, provide
sufficient security measures to the judicial authorities, prosecutors,
witnesses, legal operators, and to the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang,
and resort to all other means available to it so as to expedite the
proceeding, as set forth in paragraphs 276 and 277 of the instant
Judgment.

unanimously,

7. that the
State must publish within three months of notification of the instant
Judgment, at least once, in the official gazette “Diario Oficial” and in
another national-circulation daily, the proven facts set forth in
paragraphs 134; 134.1 to 134.8; 134.10 to 134.19; 134.26; 134.86 to
134.90; and 134.95 to 134.106, without the footnotes, and operative
paragraphs 1 to 12, as set forth in paragraph 280 of the instant
Judgment.

unanimously,

8. that the
State must carry out a public act of acknowledgment of its
responsibility in connection with the facts of this case and of amends
to the memory of Myrna Mack Chang and to her next of kin, in the
presence of the highest authorities of the State, as set forth in
paragraph 278 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

9. that the
State must publicly honor the memory of José Mérida Escobar, police
investigator, in connection with the facts of the instant case, as set
forth in paragraph 279 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

10. that the
State must include, in the training courses for members of the armed
forces and the police, as well as the security agencies, education
regarding human rights and International Humanitarian Law, as set forth
in paragraph 282of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

11. that the State must establish a scholarship, in the name of
Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraph 285 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

12. that the
State must name a well-known street or square in Guatemala City after
Myrna Mack Chang, and place a plaque in her memory where she died, or
nearby, with reference to the activities she carried out, as set forth
in paragraph 286 of the instant Judgment.

by seven votes against
one,

13. that the
State must pay the total sum of US$266,000.00 (two hundred sixty-six
thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan
currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, as set forth in
paragraphs 252 to 254 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to Lucrecia
Hernández Mack, as the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$235,000.00 (two
hundred thirty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent
in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 252 and 254 of the
instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia
Hernández Mack, US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) or
their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs
253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila
Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy, US$3,000.00 (three thousand
United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as
set forth in paragraphs 253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment; and

d)to Helen Mack Chang, US$25,000.00 (twenty-five
thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan
currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.1 and 254 of the instant
Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

14. that the State must pay the total sum of US$350,000.00 (three
hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in
Guatemalan currency as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, as set
forth in paragraphs 263 to 267 of the instant Judgment, distributed as
follows:

a) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, as
the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth
in paragraphs 263 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia
Hernández Mack, US$110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth
in paragraphs 264.a, 264.b, 266 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy,
US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent
in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267
of the instant Judgment;

d) to Zoila Chang Lau, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth
in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267 of the instant Judgment;

e) to Helen Mack Chang, US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand
United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as
set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.d and 267 of the instant Judgment;
and

f) to Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang, Ronald Chang Apuy,
and Vivian Mack Chang, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars)
or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to each of them, as set
forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.e, 264.f, 264.g and 267 of the instant
Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

15. that the State must pay the
total sum of US$163,000.00 (one hundred and sixty-three thousand United
States dollars) for legal costs and expenses, and US$5,000.00 (five
thousand United States dollars) for future expenses, as set forth in
paragraphs 291 and 292 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to the Myrna Mack Foundation,
US$145,000.00 (one hundred and forty-five thousand United States
dollars), and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), to
cover the future expenses caused by steps to be taken in connection with
the ongoing criminal proceeding to punish all those responsible for what
happened to Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 291.a and 292of the instant Judgment;

b) to the Lawyers Committee for
Human Rights, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set
forth in paragraph 291.b of the instant Judgment;

c) to the law firm Wilmer, Cutler
and Pickering, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set
forth in paragraph 291.c of the instant Judgment;

d) to the law firm Hogan & Hartson,
US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in
paragraph 291.d of the instant Judgment; and

e) to the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL), US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States
dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.e of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

unanimously,

16. that the State must pay the
total amount of compensation ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage as well as the legal costs and expenses set forth in the instant
Judgment, without any of its items being subject to currently existing
or future taxes, levies or assessments.

unanimously,

17. that the State must comply with the measures of reparation
ordered in the instant Judgment within a year of the date of its
notification, as set forth in paragraph 293 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

18. that if the State were to be in arrears, it must pay interest
on the amount owed based on the banking interest rate for arrearages in
Guatemala, as set forth in paragraph 299 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

19. that the
Court will monitor compliance with this Judgment and will close the
instant case once the State has fully complied with its provisions.
Within one year of notification of this Judgment, the State must submit
to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with it, as set
forth in paragraph 300.

Maritza Urrutia Case

360.On
February 20 and 21, 2003, the Court held a public hearing at its
headquarters in which it heard the statements by the witnesses and the
report by the expert witness proposed by the representatives of the
alleged victim and her next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission.
The IACHR also presented its final oral arguments on the merits and
reparations.

361.On
November 27, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and
reparations, by which it declared that:

1. That the
State violated the right to personal liberty embodied in Article 7 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1)
thereof, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of
paragraphs 63 to 77 of this judgment.

unanimously,

2. That the
State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1)
thereof, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the
detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 84 to 98
of this judgment.

unanimously,

3. That the
State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection
embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in
Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of
paragraphs 110 to 130 of this judgment.

unanimously,

4. That this
judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation for the victim,
in the terms of paragraph 178 of this judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. That the
State shall investigate effectively the facts of this case, which
resulted in the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights
and non-compliance with the obligations of the Inter-American Convention
to Prevent and Punish Torture; identify, prosecute and punish those
responsible, and also publish the results of the respective
investigations, in the terms of paragraph 177 of this judgment.

by six votes to one,

6. That the
State shall pay a total of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States
dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in compensation for
pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 160 of this judgment,
distributed as follows:

a)To
Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States
dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of
paragraphs 158, 159(a) and 160 of this judgment;

b)To
Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 159(b) and 160 of this judgment;

c)To María
Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 159(c) and 160 of this judgment;

d)To
Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 159(d) and 160 of this judgment; and

e)To
Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 159(e) and 160 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

7. That the
State shall pay the sum of US$44,000.00 (forty-four thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in
compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 170 of
this judgment, distributed as follows:

a)To
Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States
dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of
paragraphs 168 and 170 of this judgment;

b)To
Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten
thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan
currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(a) and 170 of this judgment;

c)To
Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

d)To María
Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

e)To
Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment; and

f)To
Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United
States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms
of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez
partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

8. That the
State shall pay the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States
dollars) or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, for costs and
expenses, in the terms of paragraph 184 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez
partially dissenting

unanimously,

9. That the
State shall pay the total amount of the compensation ordered for
pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses
established in this judgment, and none of the components may be subject
to any current or future tax or charge.

unanimously,

10. That the
State shall comply with the measures of reparation ordered in this
judgment within one year of notification of the judgment, in the terms
of paragraph 185 of this judgment.

unanimously,

11. That, should
the State delay in making the payments, it shall pay interest on the
amount owed corresponding to bank interest on arrears in Guatemala, in
the terms of paragraph 192 of this judgment.

unanimously,

12. That the
Court shall monitor compliance with this judgment and shall close the
instant case when the State has complied fully with the operative
paragraphs. Within one years of notification of this judgment, the
State shall provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to
comply, in the terms of paragraph 193 of this judgment.

Judge Cançado Trindade
informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, Judge García Ramírez of
his Reasoned Concurring Opinion, Judge De Roux Rengifo of his Separate
Opinion, and Judge Martínez Gálvez of his Reasoned and Partially
Dissenting Opinion, which are attached to this Judgment.

....

“Plan de Sánchez Massacre” Case

362.This
case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court. It was
referred to the Court was on July 31, 2002. During the year covered by
this report, the Commission took no action on this case.

363.The
case of Jorge Carpio et al. against Guatemala (Case 11.333) was
submitted to the Court on June 13, 2003. The application has to do with
the arbitrary execution of Jorge Carpio Nicolle (renowned Guatemalan
journalist and politician), Juan Vicente Villacorta, Alejandro Ávila
Guzmán, and Rigoberto Rivas González; and with the violation of the
physical integrity of the minor Sidney Shaw, in relation to the events
of July 3, 1993, in the department of Quiché, Guatemala, when his
delegation was surrounded by more than 15 armed men who, after
identifying him, shot him and his companions at point-blank range. More
than 10 years after the assassination of Jorge Carpio Nicolle and his
companions, the case is in impunity, and the IACHR referred the case for
the Court to declare that the Guatemalan State has violated the human
rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, 19, and 25 of the American
Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international
instrument.

364.On
November 26, 2003, the Court transmitted a communication by which it
reported on the State’s request for an extension to answer the
application and raise preliminary objections, and the denial of that
request by the Court considering that the time for answering the
application had already lapsed.

Molina Theissen Case

365.The
case of the child Marco Antonio Molina Theissen against Guatemala (Case
12.101) was referred to the Court on July 3, 2003. The application
refers to the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, a
14-year-old child who was kidnapped from his parents’ home by members of
the Guatemalan Army on October 6, 1981, in retaliation for the escape of
his sister Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen the previous day from a
military barracks where she had been arbitrarily detained and tortured.
Since that date Marco Antonio remains disappeared. The victim’s
next-of-kin presented successive motions for habeas corpus, which proved
absolutely ineffective. None of the persons who participated in the
detention and subsequent forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina
were prosecuted or punished. The purpose of the application is for the
Inter-American Court to declare the violation of the human rights
enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 7, 19, and 25 of the American Convention
in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

366.On
November 11, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted to the IACHR the
answer to the application submitted by the State. In its answer, the
State invoked preliminary objections arguing that the Court lacks
jurisdiction ratione temporis and ratione materiae, and
failure to exhaust domestic remedies. (The time granted by the Court for
the Commission to present its written arguments was to lapse on January
12, 2004, and therefore is not covered by this report).

i. Honduras

Juan Humberto Sánchez Case

367.On
March 3, 4, and 5, 2003, the Court heard, in a public hearing, from the
witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the Inter-American Commission,
the representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin, and the Honduran
State, as well as their final oral arguments on the preliminary
objections, merits, and reparations.

368.On
June 7, 2003, the Court issued a judgment on the preliminary objections,
merits, and reparations, in which unanimously decided:

1. to
dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State.

AND DECLARES THAT:

2. the State violated the right to
personal liberty protected by Article 7(1), Article 7(2) , Article 7(3)
, Article 7(4) , Article 7(5) , Article 7(6) and the latter in
combination with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and the right to personal
liberty protected by Article 7 of the American Convention on Human
Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández.

6. the State did not fulfill its obligation to
respect rights, set forth in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles
4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the
detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. The State also failed to fulfill
its obligation to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) in
combination with Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on
Human Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández; and the
State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, enshrined in
Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of María Dominga Sánchez,
Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez,
Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez,
Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez,
Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and
Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

7. the instant Judgment
constitutes per se a form of reparation to the victims in
accordance with the explanation in paragraph 172 of the instant Judgment.

AND IT DECIDES THAT:

8. the State
must pay the total sum of US$39,700.00 (thirty-nine thousand seven
hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency,
as compensation for pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a)
US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or their
equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters,
Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his
companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta
Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil
Hernández, as successors to Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 164 and 167, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

b)to
Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred
United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under
the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant
Judgment.

c)
US$8,200.00 (eight thousand two hundred United States dollars) or their
equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed equally between Juan
José Vijil Hernández and María Dominga Sánchez, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d)to
Domitila Vijil Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the
terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e)to Reina
Isabel Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States
dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

9. the State must pay the total
sum of US$245,000.00 (two hundred forty-five thousand United States
dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, as compensation for
non-pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a)
US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or their
equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters,
Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his
companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta
Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil
Hernández, as successors of Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 164, 165,177, 196 to 199 of the instant
Judgment.

b)to Juan
José Vijil Hernández, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States
dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

c)to María
Dominga Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or
their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in
paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d)to
Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States
dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e)to
Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the
terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

f)to
Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United
States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the
terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

g)to Norma
Iveth Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States
dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set
forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

10. the State must continue to
effectively investigate the facts in the instant case under the terms
set forth in paragraph 186 of the instant Judgment, to identify those
responsible, both the direct perpetrators and the instigators, as well
as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them
administratively and criminally as appropriate; the next of kin of the
victim must have full access and capacity to act, at all stages and
levels of said investigations, in accordance with domestic laws and the
provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights; and the results
of said investigations must be made known to the public.

11. the State must provide the
conditions required to transfer the mortal remains of Juan Humberto
Sánchez to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them, as
set forth in paragraph 187 of the instant Judgment.

12. the State
must implement a record of detainees that enables control of legality of
detentions, under the terms set forth in paragraph 189 of the instant
Judgment.

13. the State
must publicly acknowledge its responsibility regarding the facts in this
case, and as amends to the victims it must publish in the official
gazette Diario Oficial and in another national-circulation daily, once
only, the operative part of this Judgment and the chapter pertaining to
proven facts in this Judgment, under the terms set forth in paragraph
188 of the instant Judgment.

14. the State must pay the total sum
of US$19,000.00 (nineteen thousand United States dollars) or their
equivalent in Honduran currency for legal costs and expenses, under the
terms set forth in paragraphs 194, 195, 196 to 198 of the instant
Judgment.

15. compensation
for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and legal costs and expenses
established in the instant Judgment may not be subject to currently
existing or future taxes, levies or charges.

16. the State
must comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the instant
Judgment within six months of the date it is notified.

17. if the State
were in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed, which will be
the banking interest for arrears in Honduras.

18. the
compensation ordered in favor of the girls, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez and
Norma Iveth Sánchez, must be deposited by the State in their name in an
investment at a solid Honduran banking institution, in United States
dollars or their equivalent in Honduran currency, within six months
time, and under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by
banking practice and legislation, as set forth in paragraph 199 of this
Judgment.

19. it will
monitor compliance with this judgment and will close the instant case
once the State has fully applied the provisions of the instant judgment.
Within six months of the date when this Judgment is notified, the State
must submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with
this Judgment, as set forth in paragraph 200 of this Judgment.

369.On
October 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court
the transmittal of the request for interpretation submitted by the
Honduran State in relation to the judgment on preliminary objections,
merits, and reparations handed down in the case of Juan H. Sánchez on
June 7, 2003. In its brief, the State requested the “interpretation of
the ruling [and filed a] Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to
Articles 67 of the American Convention and 58 of the Court’s Rules of
Procedures.”

370.On
October 31, 2003, the Commission submitted its observations and
indicated that in filling a request for interpretation of the judgment
(“demanda de interpretación de sentencia”) and a special motion for
reconsideration (“recurso excepcional de revisión”) the State is not
seeking to have the Court interpret the meaning or scope of the ruling,
as provided for by Articles 67 of the Convention and 58 of the Court’s
Rules of Procedure, but rather it sought a review and reconsideration of
the final and unappealable judgment that the Court handed down in due
course. Based on the foregoing, and on its specific arguments to
controvert what was argued by Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights asked the Court to reject the request for interpretation
filed by the Honduran State and to require the Honduran State to comply
immediately with all provisions of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in
keeping with Article 68(1) of the American Convention.

371.On
November 26, 2003, the Court issued an interpretation of the judgment in
this case, in which it decided:

1. To reject as inadmissible the
appeal for review of the judgment of June 7, 2003, filed by the State in
the Juan Humberto Sánchez case.

2. To reject in toto as
without grounds the State’s call for interpretation of the judgment of
June 7, 2003, in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case, contained in the
request.

3. To continue monitoring
compliance with the judgment of June 7, 2003, as established in
paragraphs 196 to 200 of this judgment.

Alfredo López Álvarez Case

372.On
July 7, 2003, the IACHR presented the application in the case of Alfredo
López Álvarez against Honduras (Case 12,387). The application refers to
the violation, by the Honduran State, of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25, and 24,
in relation to the obligations established in Articles 2 and 1(1) of the
American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez,
Garifuna, Honduran, by virtue of the arbitrary deprivation of his
personal liberty beginning April 27, 1997, as the result of a set-up
carried out because of his work as a social leader, and to stifle his
activity as a Garifuna community leader.

j. Mexico

Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd Case

373.On
January 30, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights referred
an application to the Court against Mexico in relation to the Alfonso
Martín del Campo case (Case 12.228). In the application, the Commission
asked the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the
violation of Articles 7, 8, 25, 5, and 1(1) of the American Convention
on Human Rights, and of Articles 6, 8, and 10 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Mr.
Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. The application has to do with the
arbitrary deprivation of liberty and denial of justice that Alfonso
Martín del Campo Dodd has suffered and continues suffering. In addition,
the Commission asked the State to make reparation for the consequences
of the violations, and to compensate the alleged victim and his
next-of-kin. Finally, it calls on the Court to order the State to pay
the expenses and costs arising from pursuing the case domestically and
before the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of
human rights.

374.On
May 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the
Inter-American Court the transmittal of the brief forwarded by the
Mexican State in relation to the case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd.
In it, the State answered the application filed by the IACHR on January
30, 2003, and invoked preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court to take cognizance of the merits. In keeping with
Article 36(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission presented its written
arguments on the preliminary objections in question, and asked the Court
to dismiss the first and second preliminary objections raised by the
Mexican State, arguing that neither has any foundation.

375.On
November 7, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received a request from
the Inter-American Court to inform the Secretariat of the Court on
compliance with operative paragraph 6 of the judgment handed down by the
Court. On November 17, 2003, the IACHR submitted its observations,
whereby it indicated that it recognized that the Nicaraguan State had
taken steps to carry out that judgment. However, to date the lands of
the Mayagna (Sumo) community of Awas Tingni had not been delimited,
demarcated, and titled in keeping with what was stated in paragraphs 153
and 164 of the judgment, and in the provisional measures issued on the
same matter on September 6, 2003, and so it ordered the measures deemed
advisable to this end.

376.On
November 19, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted a report to the
IACHR on compliance with the judgment on reparations presented by the
Nicaraguan State.

Yatama Case

377.The
application in the Yatama case against Nicaragua (Case 12,388) was
submitted to the Court on June 16, 2003. The application refers to the
violation, by the Nicaraguan State, of Articles 23, 8, 25, 2, and 1(1)
of the American Convention to the detriment of the candidates for mayor,
deputy mayor, and local council presented by the indigenous regional
political party Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA) for the
municipal elections of November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic
Autonomous Region and South Atlantic Autonomous Region, for failing to
provide a remedy that would have enabled them to protect their right to
participate and be elected in the municipal elections of November 5,
2000, and for failure to adopt legislative or other measures as
necessary to uphold the rights established in the American Convention,
in particular, for not including provisions in the electoral law to
facilitate the political participation of the indigenous organizations
in the elections of the autonomous regions of the Atlantic Coast of
Nicaragua, in keeping with customary law and the values, usages, and
customs of the indigenous peoples who live there.

l. Panama

Baena Ricardo et. al. Case

378.On
June 6, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the
judgment in this case, by which it decided:

1.
To maintain what was decided in the resolution of November 22, 2002, by
which the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment of February 2,
2001 must be complied with in keeping with the order of the Court in
that resolution on compliance with the judgment.

2.
That the State must submit, no later than June 30, 2003, a detailed
report in which it indicates all the progress in making the reparations
ordered by the Court, in keeping with what was requested by the Court in
... the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

3.
That, once the State remits said detailed report on compliance with the
judgment, the victims or their legal representatives and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must submit their observations
on that report within three months of its receipt, as indicated in ...
the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

4.
That it will continue supervising full compliance with the Judgment of
February 2, 2001.

379.On
August 13, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court
the transmission of a brief of observations on the resolution of the
Inter-American Court of June 6, 2003 (calling into question the
jurisdiction of the Court to supervise the implementation of its
judgments) and a copy of a report on income and expenditures related to
the Court’s judgment of February 2, 2001 in the Baena Ricardo et al.
case. The Inter-American Commission presented some general observations
that it considered pertinent and with whose justification it did not
agree and reserved the right to submit, in keeping with operative
paragraph 3 of the resolution of June 2003, its observations on the
report that the State submitted in due course to the Court.

380.On
November 28, 2003, the Court issued a judgment on jurisdiction in this
case, in which it declared:

1. That the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights is competence to monitor compliance
with its decisions.

2. That, in
the exercise of its competence to monitor compliance with its decisions,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is authorized to request the
responsible States to submit reports on the steps they have taken to
implement the measures of reparation ordered by the Court, to assess the
said reports, and to issue instructions and orders on compliance with
its judgments.

and decides

unanimously,

3. To reject as inadmissible the State’s questioning of the
competence of the Court to monitor compliance with its judgments.

4. To continue monitoring full compliance with the judgment of
February 2, 2001, in the Baena Ricardo et al. case.

...

m. Paraguay

Case of
the “Panchito López” Center for the Re-education of Minors

381.This
case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court; it was
referred to it on May 20, 2002. During the year covered by this report,
no action was taken by the Commission.

Ricardo Canese Case

382.This
case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court; it was
referred to the Court on June 12, 2002. During the year covered by this
report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Yakye Axa Case

383.The
Yakye Axa case against Paraguay (Case 12,313) was referred to the
Inter-American Court on March 17, 2003. The facts of the application
have to do with the ancestral property right of the Yakye Axa indigenous
community of the Enxet-Lengua People and its members, considering that
the community’s territorial claim has been pending since 1993, without
any result, making it impossible for the community and its members to
accede to the property rights in and possession of its territory,
contributing to keeping the community in a vulnerable state with respect
to food, medical care, and sanitation, constituting an ongoing threat to
the survival of the community members and to the community’s integrity.
The purpose of the application is for the Court to establish the
violations committed by the State to the detriment of the indigenous
community and its members in relation to Articles 21, 4, 8, and 25, in
conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.

n. Peru

Cesti
Hurtado Case

384.This
case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgments
issued by the Court on September 29, 1999, and May 31, 2001. During the
year covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court observations
on compliance with the judgments referred to, and on the payment of the
amount ordered for moral injury.

Cantoral Benavides Case

385.The
Inter-American Commission presented the Court observations related to
compliance with the judgment in this case, and therein reiterated its
recognition of the State’s efforts during this time to comply with the
judgment of the Court, and observed that there are still operative
paragraphs that have met with partial compliance, accordingly it asked
the Court, in keeping with the thirteenth operative paragraph of the
judgment of December 3, 2001, and in the use of its faculties, to
continue supervising compliance with it, until such time as the
Illustrious State fully complies with all the operative paragraphs
thereof.

386.The
operative paragraphs that have yet to meet with the compliance of the
Peruvian State, and which it is important to highlight, include the one
to nullify, in keeping with the means available under Peru’s domestic
legislation, the conviction imposed on Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides,
and the one to undertake investigations into the facts, especially on
the torture to which he was subjected when deprived of his liberty.

387.As
regards the first point mentioned, while it is true that the State order
that the police, judicial, and personal records of Luis Alberto Cantoral
be expunged, to date the proceeding and the judgment imposed on him,
which constituted the subject matter of the case before the Honorable
Court, have not been declared null and void.

388.With
respect to the investigations and proceedings that the State should
carry out on the facts, the Commission has received information that on
November 7, 2003, the prosecutorial office in the case had handed down a
resolution in which it ordered that the record be archived, on
considering that the crime of torture was not provided for, as such, in
the 1993 Criminal Code, and that the public employees tried for those
facts could only be tried for personal injuries and abuse of authority,
which, given the time elapsed since then, would be prescribed. This
decision repudiates the order of the Honorable Court and tends to foster
impunity.

389.On
November 27, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the
judgment in which it resolved:

1. That the
State has complied with the payment order in favor of the next of kin of
Consuelo Benavides Cevallos and commemoration of the name of Consuelo
Benavides Cevallos, in accordance with the third operative paragraph of
the judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

2. That the
State has not yet complied with the obligation to investigate, prosecute
and punish those responsible for the human rights violations to the
detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in accordance with the fourth
operative paragraph of the judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

3. To inform the General Assembly
of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, about the failure of the State
of Ecuador to comply with its obligation to investigate, prosecute and
punish all those responsible for the human rights violations committed
to the detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in the terms of the
judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

...

Durand and Ugarte Case

390.This
case is in the phase of supervising compliance with the judgments issued
by the Court on August 16, 2000, and December 3, 2001. During the year
covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court observations on
compliance with those judgments. The Commission recognized the State’s
efforts to comply with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on
reparations, but concluded that operative paragraphs 4(a) (on
disseminating the content of the judgment in other media besides the
official gazette), 4(c), and 4(d) had yet to be complied with. In this
regard, the Commission asked that Court, in keeping with operative
paragraph six of the judgment, and in the use of its powers, to continue
supervising compliance with it, until such time as the State fully
complies with all its operative paragraphs.

391.As
for the criminal investigations that the State is to carry out to
establish responsibility for those acts, the Commission recognized the
fundamental contribution of the Final Report of the Commission on Truth
and Reconciliation, which considered this case among those selected as
typical during the period of study and analysis of the violence in Peru.
Nonetheless, based on the data and information provided, the Commission
observed that the corpses of the victims of El Frontón have yet to be
located and identified.

Castillo Páez Case

392.The
Inter-American Commission presented its observations to the Court on
compliance with the Judgment on Reparations in the Castillo Páez case of
November 27, 1998, in keeping with the resolution issued by the
Inter-American Court on November 27, 2002, and the communication of
November 13, 2003, in which it requested that the IACHR provide its
comments on compliance with the judgment. In those observations the
IACHR asked the Court to urge the Peruvian State to adopt the provisions
of domestic law needed to adequately criminalize the conduct of forced
disappearance, in keeping with the decision of this Honorable Court and
the commitment acquired by Peru as a result of having signed and
ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of
Persons; to urge the State to pursue the investigations and criminal
proceedings without delay, in order to clarify the facts and the
responsibility of the persons who violated the rights of Ernesto Rafael
Castillo Páez, and to adopt the pertinent measures to ensure the
appearance before the state authorities of the persons who had been
implicated; and to urge the State to report on the investigation into
the loss of the record of the habeas corpus motion lodged at that time
by the victim’s next-of-kin and on the steps taken to search for and
recover the remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. Finally, the
Commission asked the Court to continue supervising compliance with that
judgment, until such time as the State fully complies with all aspects
of the operative paragraphs.

393.On
November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued a resolution in which
it declared:

1. That pursuant to considering seven of this
order, the state has fully complied with points one and five of the
order of the judgment on reparations delivered by this court on November
27, 1998 in relation to damages.

2. That it
will keep open the proceedings on monitoring compliance with those
points still not complied with in the instant case, pursuant to
considering eight of this Order.

394.In
that resolution, the Court decided:

3. To urge the
State to take all necessary action to quickly make effective all
reparations decreed in the November 3, 1997 and November 27, 1998
Judgments still unfulfilled, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 68 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To demand
that the State submits a detailed report no later than April 1, 2004,
indicating all action taken to effectively carry out an investigation of
what occurred to Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez as well as of the location
of his mortal remains, as pointed out in the considering eight of this
Order.

5. Ask the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the
representatives of the victim’s next of kin, to submit their
observations to the State report mentioned in the previous operative
paragraph no later than two months from the date of submission.

6. Continue
monitoring the compliance with Judgment on the merits delivered on
November 13, 1997 and of the Judgment on reparations delivered on
November 27, 1998 in the Castillo Páez Case.

...

Loayza Tamayo Case

395.The
Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the third and
fourth reports on compliance with the judgment on reparations in the
Loayza Tamayo case, of November 27, 1998, in keeping with the resolution
issued by the Inter-American Court on November 27, 2002. Therein, the
IACHR asked the Court to urge the Peruvian State to pursue the
investigations and criminal proceedings without delay so as to determine
the facts and the responsibility of the persons who violated the rights
of Ms. María Elena Loayza Tamayo, and requested that in the use of its
powers, and in keeping with the tenth operative paragraph of the
judgment, that it continue supervising compliance until such time as the
State fully complies with all aspects of the operative paragraphs.

396.Of
the operative paragraphs of the judgment that have yet to meet with
compliance by the State, the Commission observed that María Elena Loayza
Tamayo should be reinstated in the teaching positions she held when
deprived of liberty, or similar ones that would not have a detrimental
impact on the income and benefits she would have enjoyed had she
continued to hold them.

397.Similarly,
with respect to the duty of the State to adopt measures of domestic law
in order to ensure that no adverse resolution issued in the proceeding
to which the victim was subjected before the civilian jurisdiction will
have any legal effect whatsoever. The Commission observed that of the
information provided by the Illustrious State, it appears that the
decision of the Honorable Court is not meeting with compliance,
considering that by proceeding with a new trial, an effort is being made
to revive the second trial and the judgment handed down in the civilian
jurisdiction against María Elena Loayza Tamayo for the crime of
terrorism, on ordering its nullity under the new legislation, which, as
the Commission has stated, repudiates the decision of the Honorable
Court in this case and endangers the victim’s juridical security. The
Commission calls attention to the grave effects of that decision, which
makes it possible to keep the victim under jurisdiction, even though she
was absolved in due course by the Peruvian courts.

398.On
November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court resolved:

1. To urge the
State to adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively and promptly
with the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998, delivered by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Loayza Tamayo case,
as established in Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human
Rights.

2. To call
upon the State to present to the Court by April 1, 2004, at the latest,
a detailed report on the measures taken in order to comply with the
ruling of the Court in the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998,
as indicated in the eighth considering paragraph of this order on
compliance.

3. To call
upon the representatives of the victim and the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to present their comments on the State’s report within
two months of receiving it.

...

Neira Alegría Case

399.The
Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on the reports on
compliance with the judgment on reparations of September 19, 1996, in
keeping with the resolution issued by the Inter-American Court on
November 28, 2002, and the information provided by the Peruvian State in
its communication of October 7, 2003. The IACHR asked the Court to
require the Peruvian State to submit more detailed information on
compliance with the fourth operative paragraph in its next report on
compliance with the judgment on reparations in the Neira Alegría et
al. case, and asked that, in the use of its powers and in keeping
with the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, it
continue supervising compliance, until the State fully complies with all
aspects of the operative paragraphs.

Barrios Altos Case

400.On
June 17, September 25, and November 6, 2003, the Inter-American
Commission submitted observations on the briefs presented by the
Peruvian State to the Court regarding the steps taken for the purpose of
complying with the orders of the Court in the judgment on reparations.

401.On
November 28, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued a resolution by which
it declared:

1.That,
in accordance with the arrangements made by the parties in the
reparations agreement, subsequently ratified by the Court in the
judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001, the manner in which the
State must make the payment of the compensation corresponding to the
beneficiaries who are minors is by depositing the compensation amounts
in a trust fund “under the most favorable conditions according to
Peruvian banking practices.”

2. That the
State must defray any expenses arising from the trust fund. The State
may not deduct any percentage of the compensation corresponding to the
minors for the administrative or financial expenses incurred by the
trust company, to the detriment of the capital deposited in the trust
fund.

3. As stated
in the fifteenth considering paragraph of this Order, the State has
complied in full with the aspects indicated in subparagraph (a) of the
second operative paragraph and the sixth operative paragraph of the
judgment on reparations delivered by the Court on November 30, 2001, as
regards:

a) Payment of
compensation to the following surviving victims: Natividad Condorcahuana
Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez
(or Albitres, Albites or Alvitrez) (subparagraph
(a) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of
November 30, 2001);
and

b) Finding the
next of kin of the victims Odar Mender Sifuentes Minez, Benedicta Yanque
Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, in order to grant them the
reparations ordered with regard to the facts of this case (sixth
operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001).

5.That
it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the aspects
pending fulfillment in the instant case, as indicated in the sixteenth
considering paragraph of this Order.

402.In
its resolution of November 28, 2003, the Inter-American Court also
resolved:

6. To urge the
State to adopt any necessary measures to comply promptly and effectively
with the reparations ordered in the judgments of March 14 and November
30, 2001, which are pending fulfillment, pursuant to the provisions of
Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

7. To call
upon the State to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
by April 1, 2004, at the latest, a detailed report indicating all the
measures adopted to comply with the obligation to investigate the facts
in order to identify those responsible for the human rights violations
referred to in the judgment on merits, and also to publish the results
of this investigation and punish those responsible, and to comply with
the other reparations ordered by this Court that are pending fulfillment,
as indicated in the sixteenth considering paragraph of this Order.

8. To call
upon the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit their comments on
the State’s report mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within
two months of receiving it.

9. To continue
monitoring the aspects of the judgment of March 14, 2001 (merits), and
November 30, 2001(reparations) that are pending compliance.

...

Constitutional Court Case

403.This
case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment
issued by the Court on January 31, 2001. During the year covered by this
report, the Commission sent the Court observations on compliance with
that judgment.

404.On
November 27, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the
judgment, and it declared:

1. that in
accordance with Considering seven of the instant Order, the State has
fully complied with operative paragraph six of the Judgment on
reparations issued by this Court on January 31, 2001 with respect to
compensation for legal costs and expenses.

2. that the
procedure to monitor compliance with the points mentioned in Considering
eight of the instant Order will remain open.

405.On
November 27, 2003, the Court also resolved:

3. To urge the State to adopt such measures as
may be necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the reparations
ordered in the January 31, 2001 judgment and whose compliance is still
pending, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights.

4. To order
the State to submit a detailed report, no later than April 1, 2004, in
which it must specify the progress of investigations to identify the
persons responsible for violation of the human rights of the victims in
this case, and to punish them, as well as measures for payment of back
salaries and other benefits that Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey
Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano are entitled to, pursuant to domestic
legislation, as set forth in Considering eight of the instant Order.

5. To order the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights as well as the victims to submit their observations to the
report by the state mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within
two months of the date it is received.

6. To continue
monitoring compliance with the Judgment on the merits and on reparations
issued on January 31, 2001 in the Case of the
Constitutional Court.

...

Baruch Ivcher Bronstein Case

406.This
case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment
issued by the Court on February 6, 2001. During the year covered by this
report, the Commission sent the Court documentation on compliance with
that judgment.

Castillo Petruzzi Case

407.This
case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment
issued by the Court on May 30, 1999. During the year covered by this
report the Commission sent the Court documentation on compliance with
that judgment.

Case of the “Five Pensioners” (Torres Benvenuto et.
al.)

408.In
the “Five Pensioners” case, submitted to the Court by the Inter-American
Commission on December 4, 2001, the Court issued the judgment on the
merits and reparations on February 28, 2003, in which it unanimously:

1. Declares that the State
violated the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 93 to 121 of this judgment,
to the detriment of
Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez
Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez.

2. Declares that the State
violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 125 to 141 of this judgment, to the
detriment ofCarlos Torres
Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández,
Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez.

3. Declares
that the State failed to comply with the general obligations of Articles
1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to
the violations of the substantive rights indicated in the preceding
operative paragraphs, as stated in paragraphs 161 to 168 of this
judgment.

4. Declares
that this judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation for
the victims, as stated in paragraph 180 of this judgment.

5. Decides
that the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right
to property should be established under domestic legislation, by the
competent national organs.

6. Decides
that the State must conduct the corresponding investigations and apply
the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by
the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the
applications for protective measures filed by the victims.

7. Decides
that, as indicated in paragraph 190 of this judgment, in fairness, the
State must pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow
the amount of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) for
non-pecuniary damage. The State must comply with the provisions of this
operative paragraph within one year at the latest of notification of
this judgment.

8. Decides that the State must pay
the amount of US$13,000.00 (thirteen thousand United States dollars) for
expenses and a total of US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United
States dollars) for costs, as stated in paragraph 182 of this judgment.

9. Declares
that the payments of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs
and expenses established in this judgment may not be subject to any
current or future tax or charge.

10. Declares
that the State must comply with this judgment within one year of
receiving notification thereof.

11. Declares
that, should the State fall in arrears with the payments, it must pay
interest on the amount owed corresponding to bank interest on payments
in arrear in Peru.

12. Decides that it will monitor compliance with
this judgment and will consider the case closed when the State has
complied fully with its provisions. Within one year from notification
of the judgment, the State must provide the Court with a report on the
measures taken to comply with this judgment, as stated in paragraph 186
above.

Lori Berenson Case

409.This
case is in the preliminary phase of study by the Court, having been
referred to the Court on July 19, 2002. During the year covered by this
report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Case of the Brothers Gómez Paquiyauri

410.This
case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court, having been
referred to the Court on February 5, 2002. During the year covered by
this report, the Commission took no action.

María Teresa de la Cruz Case

411.The
case of María Teresa de la Cruz against Peru (Case 12.138) was presented
to the Court on June 11, 2003. Ms. De La Cruz Flores was detained by
members of the Police on charges of terrorism and tried by a
“faceless-judge” court that sentenced her to 20 years in prison (Decree
25,475); that conviction was subsequently affirmed. The Constitutional
Court of Peru, on January 3, 2003, handed down a judgment in which it
declared the unconstitutionality of certain laws. The Peruvian
government, in carrying out that pronouncement, ordered that the
National Chamber on Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo),
progressively in a period not greater than 60 working days from the
entry into force of the legislation, should annul at its own initiative,
unless the defendant consented to it, the conviction and oral proceeding
and declare, as the case may be, the nullity of the prosecutorial
indictment in criminal proceedings for the crime of terrorism in the
criminal jurisdiction before judges or prosecutors whose identities were
kept secret. Even so, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores continues to be
held as a convict, for the crime of terrorism. The IACHR asked the Court
to rule on the violation of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 24, all in conjunction
with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.

Acevedo Jaramillo et. al. Case (SITRAMUN)

412.On
June 25, 2003, the Commission referred the application in the case of
Acevedo Jaramillo Julio et al., members of the Municipal Workers Union
of Lima (SITRAMUN) against the Republic of Peru (Case 12,084), for
breach of the judgments handed down by Peruvian courts on behalf of the
workers who are members of SITRAMUN. The IACHR asked the Court to
establish the international responsibility of the Peruvian State, which
has breached its international obligations established in Article 25 of
the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that
instrument, for failing to carry out the judgments handed down by the
judges of the city of Lima, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (appellate),
and the Constitutional Court of Peru by an amparo action, since
1997, in proceedings that recognized the rights of the workers of the
municipality of Lima who are members of SITRAMUN.

o. Dominican Republic

Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Case

413.The
case of the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico against the Dominican
Republic (Case 12.189), the first case against this country, was
referred to the Court on June 11, 2003, the purpose being for the Court
to rule on the international responsibility of the State of the
Dominican Republic considering that the Dominican authorities denied the
girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi Dominican nationality even
though they were born in Dominican territory and the Constitution
establishes the principle of jus soli. In view of the foregoing,
the Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of the right to
the recognition of juridical personality, the right to judicial
guarantees, the rights of the child, the right to nationality, the right
to equality before the law, and the right to judicial protection,
established respectively at Articles 3, 8, 19, 20, 24, and 25 of the
American Convention in connection with Articles 1 and 2 thereof.

p. Suriname

Moiwana Community Case

414.On
December 20, 2002, the Inter-American Commission referred the case of
the Moiwana Community against the Republic of Suriname to the
consideration of the Court, in keeping with Article 51 of the American
Convention, which arose from complaint 11.821, received at the
Secretariat of the Commission on June 27, 1997, regarding the
extrajudicial executions of more than 40 residents in the Maroon
community of Moiwana, the intentional destruction of the inhabitants’
property by the soldiers of the Surinamese State, and the failure to
investigate the facts and punish the persons responsible.

415.The
Republic of Suriname accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court in 1987, i.e. after the attack on the Moiwana
Community; nonetheless, the State has denied justice with respect to its
duty to investigate what happened in that attack up until the moment the
case was referred to the jurisdiction of the Court.

416.The
Commission asked the Court to declare violations of Articles 8, 25, and
1(1) of the American Convention, and that it declare that the State of
Suriname is obligated to make reparation for the consequences of those
violations and compensate the victims and their next-of-kin, and to pay
the expenses and costs they have incurred domestically and
internationally in processing the case before the Commission and the
Court.

q. Trinidad and Tobago

Winston Caesar Case

417.The
case of Winston Caesar against Trinidad and Tobago (Case 12, 147) was
referred to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on February 26,
2003, as on January 10, 1992, Winston Caesar was convicted in the High
Court of Trinidad and Tobago for the crime of attempted rape. Mr. Caesar
was sentenced to 20 years of prison with forced labor and to receive 15
lashes with the “nine-tail whip,” in keeping with Trinidadian law, which
allows the imposition of corporal punishment. The Court of Appeals of
Trinidad and Tobago affirmed his conviction and sentence in a decision
of February 28, 1996. The State imposed this punishment on Mr. Caesar in
a manner that violated his right not to be subjected to torture or other
cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, which was aggravated since the
punishment was imposed after a criminal proceeding characterized by
unwarranted delay and conditions of detention that do not satisfy the
minimum standards of decency. The purpose of the application is for the
Court to declare the violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), and 25 of
the American Convention, in conjunction with the breach of Articles 1(1)
and 2 of the Convention.

Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case

418.On
November 27, 2003, the Court found:

1. That,
pursuant to the basic pacta sunt servanda principle, and in
accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the State has the duty to promptly comply
with the June 21, 2002 Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights in the Hilaire, Constantine and
Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago Case.

2. That the
State cannot elude its obligations issuing from the June 21, 2002
Judgment of the Court, despite having denounced the Convention, for
which reason it must effectively comply with the Judgment pursuant to
Article 78(2) of the Convention.

3. That to
date, the State has not reported to the Court on compliance with the
aforementioned Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights.

419.In
addition, the Court ordered:

4. If the
current situation persists, to report on it to the General Assembly of
the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the
American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To urge the
State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively and
promptly comply with said Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of
Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

...

r. Venezuela

Caracazo Case

420.On
March 21, 2003, the Court transmitted to the IACHR the first report of
the Venezuelan State on compliance with the judgment on reparations
issued by that Court on August 20, 2002. On June 2, 2003, the IACHR
presented its observations in this respect to the Court.

421.On
December 9, 2003, the Commission received a report and attached
documents from the Court produced by the Public Ministry on actions
taken by the State to comply with the judgment handed down in August
2002, and Official Gazette No. 37,823, of December 4, 2003, which
includes the Authorization of the National Assembly to decree an
additional credit in the amount of eight billion nine hundred eighteen
million eight hundred fourteen thousand six hundred bolivars (Bs.
8,918,814,600) to pay compensation to carry out the judgment in the
case.

El Amparo Case

422.This
case is in the phase of supervising compliance with the judgments issued
by the Court on January 18, 1995, and September 14, 1996. During the
year covered by this report, the Commission took no action related to
this case.

423.On
January 13, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
submitted its written observations on the request for an advisory
opinion on the deprivation of the enjoyment and exercise of certain
labor rights of migrant workers, and its compatibility with the
obligation of the American states to guarantee the principles of legal
equality, non-discrimination, and equal and effective protection of the
law enshrined in international instruments for the protection of human
rights; the subordination and conditioning of the observance of the
obligations imposed by international human rights law, including
obligations erga omnes, in order to advance certain domestic
policy objectives of an American state; as well as the character that
the principles of legal equality, non-discrimination, and equal and
effective protection of the law have attained in the context of the
progressive development of international human rights law and its
codification.

424.On
January 16, 2003, the President of the Court called a public hearing for
the purpose of hearing the oral arguments of several member states of
the OAS as well as those of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights in relation to the request for an advisory opinion.

425.During
its 59th Regular Session, the Court deliberated and, on September 17,
2003, issued its Advisory Opinion 18. In this respect, the Court offered
the following opinion:

...

1. That States have the general obligation to respect and ensure
the fundamental rights. To this end, they must take affirmative action,
avoid taking measures that limit or infringe a fundamental right, and
eliminate measures and practices that restrict or violate a fundamental
right.

2. That non-compliance by the State with the general obligation
to respect and ensure human rights, owing to any discriminatory
treatment, gives rise to international responsibility.

3. That the principle of equality and non-discrimination is
fundamental for the safeguard of human rights in both international law
and domestic law.

4. That the
fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination forms part of
general international law, because it is applicable to all States,
regardless of whether or not they are a party to a specific
international treaty. At the current stage of the development of
international law, the fundamental principle of equality and
non-discrimination has entered the domain of
jus cogens.

5. That the
fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination, which is of a
peremptory nature, entails obligations erga omnes of protection
that bind all States and generate effects with regard to third parties,
including individuals.

6. That the
general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights binds States,
regardless of any circumstance or consideration, including the migratory
status of a person.

7. That the right to due process of law must be recognized as
one of the minimum guarantees that should be offered to any migrant,
irrespective of his migratory status. The broad scope of the
preservation of due process encompasses all matters and all persons,
without any discrimination.

8. That the
migratory status of a person cannot constitute a justification to
deprive him of the enjoyment and exercise of human rights, including
those of a labor-related nature. When assuming an employment
relationship, the migrant acquires rights that must be recognized and
ensured because he is an employee, irrespective of his regular or
irregular status in the State where he is employed These rights are a
result of the employment relationship.

9. That the State has the obligation to respect and guarantee
the labor human rights of all workers, irrespective of their status as
nationals or aliens, and not to tolerate situations of discrimination
that are harmful to the latter in the employment relationships
established between private individuals (employer-worker). The State
must not allow private employers to violate the rights of workers, or
the contractual relationship to violate minimum international standards.

10. That workers, being possessors of labor rights, must have all
the appropriate means to exercise them. Undocumented migrant workers
possess the same labor rights as other workers in the State where they
are employed, and the latter must take the necessary measures to ensure
that this is recognized and complied with in practice.

11. That States
may not subordinate or condition observance of the principle of equality
before the law and non-discrimination to achieving their public policy
goals, whatever these may be, including those of a migratory character.